Cooijman's Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes (Cultural Marxism Test)

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

Link: http://paulcooijmans.com/personalitytests/cultural_marxism.html


This is my score:

Your CINEMA score is 10.5 out of 80.

You are clearly not a cultural Marxist. You really should try harder.


As a lifelong agnostic non-theist, I have long postulated that the liberty movement has been infiltrated over the years by social justice warriors, progressive statists, neo-fascists, and even neo-conservative collectivists who have persistently attempted to re-delineate freedom and liberties as collectivist entitlements. This is a test which analyses you liberty lovers how much or little you have in common with a Frankfurt School inspirer (Cultural Marxism); in other words, adulators of multiculturalism, postmodern feminism, Orwellian newspeak, and emancipatory identity politics (group identity and social constructionism), all of which I would consider a serendipitous hazard to many individual liberties such as freedom of speech, thought and association. Some of the questions like No. 4, 5, 9, 13, 31 and 62 where I fulfilled Neo-Marxist criterion have nothing in common with the ideology whatsoever personally. So not the most accurate, but still a lot of fun.

 

[acptulsa]

Some odd questions in there.

46 A welfare state is compatible with, can be maintained in, a multicultural society.

Why do they not seem to care if one can be maintained in a non-multicultural society? What is this thing measuring? How hard someone will cling to anything that sounds like the modern conception of 'enlightened'? Whether someone will give the answer that is honest and true even if they are saying it's true for the wrong reason? Seems to me half of this is a measure of attitudes and the other half is a measure of spine. And, of course, if you try to measure two variables with one experiment, you learn nothing at all.

 

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

Some odd questions in there.



Why do they not seem to care if one can be maintained in a non-multicultural society? What is this thing measuring? How hard someone will cling to anything that sounds like the modern conception of 'enlightened'? Whether someone will give the answer that is honest and true even if they are saying it's true for the wrong reason? Seems to me half of this is a measure of attitudes and the other half is a measure of spine. And, of course, if you try to measure two variables with one experiment, you learn nothing at all.

When champagne socialists bleat on about multiculturalism, they use it as an extenuation for third world immigration as it's the ideal policy to socially engineer such a ghettoized society; especially by imposing unskilled labor who are staunchly dependent on welfare, thus deteriorating public services which could eventually lead to similar conditions to Detroit which was attributed to irrepressible trade union influence, as well as sanctioning "positive discrimination" laws on both private enterprises and public services (NHS) to engender an entitlement mentality by giving preferential treatment over the national majority.

There is literally no discrepancies between question 46 and this one...

39 A welfare state can be maintained while allowing mass immigration of other-ethnic peoples

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Link: http://paulcooijmans.com/personalitytests/cultural_marxism.html


This is my score:

Your CINEMA score is 10.5 out of 80.

You are clearly not a cultural Marxist. You really should try harder.


As a lifelong agnostic non-theist, I have long postulated that the liberty movement has been infiltrated over the years by social justice warriors, progressive statists, neo-fascists, and even neo-conservative collectivists who have persistently attempted to re-delineate freedom and liberties as collectivist entitlements. This is a test which analyses you liberty lovers how much or little you have in common with a Frankfurt School inspirer (Cultural Marxism); in other words, adulators of multiculturalism, postmodern feminism, Orwellian newspeak, and emancipatory identity politics (group identity and social constructionism), all of which I would consider a serendipitous hazard to many individual liberties such as freedom of speech, thought and association. Some of the questions like No. 4, 5, 9, 13, 31 and 62 where I fulfilled Neo-Marxist criterion have nothing in common with the ideology whatsoever personally. So not the most accurate, but still a lot of fun.

Usually, I prefer to call myself agnostic-athiest but agnostic-nontheist could fit me too so it's nice to meet another like-minded individual in that sense

Libertarians might agree completely on question 9 but how can you say that 4, 5, 13, 31 & 62 don't relate to the ideology?

4 Individual human personality is to a sizeable degree shaped by social environment.
--- This is an egalitarian view in that it suggests that given the "right" (whatever it may be) social environment everybody will be nice & jolly, etc which is a falsehood perpetrated to push social engineering despite the fact that our personalities might be, to whatever degree, dictated by our biochemistry & genetics.

5 One person's truth may not be the same as another person's truth.
--- Truth is truth. If it ain't so then the "truth" would be irrelevant.

13 If you do not lock your car, it is your own fault if it gets stolen, because you have given cause for theft.
--- It's how many muslims in Western countries justify raping Western women because they don't wear a burqa While a person should try to take precautions as much as possible, when a crime occurs, the blame lies primarily on the shoulders of the perpetrator, not the victim.

31 If poor people commit crimes, this is likely a result of their poverty, being discriminated, or other depressing social circumstances.
--- This is a typical egalitarian argument for socialism that if only we spread the wealth around more, be more egalitarian in general then there'd be less crime. On the contrary, there are plenty of people poor, discriminated individuals living depressing social circumstances who DON'T commit crimes while there are also people who are not poor, discriminated or living in depressing social circumstances who DO commit crimes; so obviously these factors aren't major factors influencing people to commit crimes. Theories like these rid people of personal responsibility in that they are made to believe that they can blame their criminal actions on external factors, & that they are not to be blamed for their crimes.

62 It is absolutely no problem if those of higher intelligence and education have low fertility rates, have few children.
--- While I don't think there's anything wrong with personal choices but this^^^ is often a justification for the replacement of higher-intelligence Western populations through the Third World mass immigration.

 

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

Usually, I prefer to call myself agnostic-athiest but agnostic-nontheist could fit me too so it's nice to meet another like-minded individual in that sense

Libertarians might agree completely on question 9 but how can you say that 4, 5, 13, 31 & 62 don't relate to the ideology?

4 Individual human personality is to a sizeable degree shaped by social environment.
--- This is an egalitarian view in that it suggests that given the "right" (whatever it may be) social environment everybody will be nice & jolly, etc which is a falsehood perpetrated to push social engineering despite the fact that our personalities might be, to whatever degree, dictated by our biochemistry & genetics.

This was the question that I had the most doubt due to it's equivocalness, but I do know that personality can dictated by biochemical reactions if predetermined by an extraneous stressor.

13 If you do not lock your car, it is your own fault if it gets stolen, because you have given cause for theft.
--- It's how many muslims in Western countries justify raping Western women because they don't wear a burqa While a person should try to take precautions as much as possible, when a crime occurs, the blame lies primarily on the shoulders of the perpetrator, not the victim.

Well I viewed this as undermining personal responsibility, but yes come to think of it I think the blame would lie on the perpetrator when accounting for that situation in hand.

31 If poor people commit crimes, this is likely a result of their poverty, being discriminated, or other depressing social circumstances.
--- This is a typical egalitarian argument for socialism that if only we spread the wealth around more, be more egalitarian in general then there'd be less crime. On the contrary, there are plenty of people poor, discriminated individuals living depressing social circumstances who DON'T commit crimes while there are also people who are not poor, discriminated or living in depressing social circumstances who DO commit crimes; so obviously these factors aren't major factors influencing people to commit crimes. Theories like these rid people of personal responsibility in that they are made to believe that they can blame their criminal actions on external factors, & that they are not to be blamed for their crimes.

My view for this was done to permissive parenting standards and the breakdown of the traditional family unit; which for me has been a prominent cause of juvenile delinquency (feral youth), and has been a serious predicament in the UK for the past 3 decades. I discarded the idea that the impoverished were discriminated which we can both be concordant on.

62 It is absolutely no problem if those of higher intelligence and education have low fertility rates, have few children.
--- While I don't think there's anything wrong with personal choices but this^^^ is often a justification for the replacement of higher-intelligence Western populations through the Third World mass immigration.

Never even thought about that..